From Principle to Practice: The EU-Wide Implementation Challenges of the “Right to Be Forgotten” Following Google v CNIL
Abstract
While scholarly attention largely gravitates towards the debate on regional versus global delisting under EU law, this paper scrutinizes the Google v CNIL ruling concerning the conditions and methods of EU-wide delisting in light of the preliminary reference questions posed. The focus lies in the intricate analysis absent from the dispositif, which leaves many complexities to the evaluation of the national data protection authorities and the courts, and, concerningly, to the solely discretion of the search engine operators. Nuanced analyses absent from the dispositif address the crucial aspects in defining the territorial scope such as the role of geo-blocking, the possible public interest variations within the EU and the regulatory cooperation frameworks, particularly in light of Google’s standard delisting procedure. Furthermore, the research highlights the concerns about the varying levels of protection for EU citizens, contrasting the delisting procedure before the search engine operator and the formal proceedings involving the data protection authorities and the courts. By exploring a significant decision by the Belgian data protection authority, the author illustrates the possibilities for regulatory cooperation to achieve a cohesive and comprehensive approach to EU-wide delisting. The author advocates for regulatory transparency in this legal area and explicit guidance from the European Data Protection Board toward ensuring that the “right to be forgotten” is applied consistently and in a manner that genuinely protects individuals’ rights across the EU.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
LITERATURE
Bartolomé M., Google v. CNIL and the Right to Be Forgotten: A Judgment of Solomon, “Global Privacy Law Review” 2020, vol. 1(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/gplr2020008.
Bertram T. [et al.], Five Years of the Right to be Forgotten, “Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security”, November 2019, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3319535.3354208.
Birnhack M., Symposium. The Glocal Net: Standing on Joel Reidenberg’s Shoulders, “Fordham Law Review” 2022, vol. 90(4).
Bougiakiotis E., One Law to Rule Them All? The Reach of EU Data Protection Law after the Google v CNIL Case (August 17, 2020), “Computer Law and Security Review” 2021, vol. 42, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105580.
Erdos D., Search Engines, Global Internet Publication and European Data Protection: A New Via Media?, “The Cambridge Law Journal“ 2020, vol. 79(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197320000197.
Friesen J., The Impossible Right to Be Forgotten, “Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal” 2021, vol. 47(1).
Frosio G., Enforcement of European Rights on a Global Scale, [in:] Routledge Handbook of European Copyright Law, ed. E. Rosati, London 2021, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003156277-26.
Globocnik J., The Right to Be Forgotten is Taking Shape: CJEU Judgments in GC and Others (C-136/17) and Google v CNIL (C-507/17), “GRUR International” 2020, vol. 69(4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaa002.
Gstrein O.J., Right to Be Forgotten: European Data Imperialism, National Privilege, or Universal Human Right?, “Review of European Administrative Law” 2020, vol. 13(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.7590/187479820X15881424928426.
Gstrein O.J., The Judgment That Will Be Forgotten: How the ECJ Missed an Opportunity in Google vs CNIL (C-507/17), “Verfassungsblog: On Matters Constitutional” 2019, DOI: https://doi.org/10.17176/20190925-232711-0.
Gumzej N., Google Me and Tell Me Who I Am (Not): The Legal Intricacies of Global Delisting Orders in the “Right to Be Forgotten” Cases, “SEE Law Journal” 2024, no. 12.
Gumzej N., Technical Solutions Supporting the Online RTBF in the CJEU and ECHR Jurisprudence, “2023 46th MIPRO ICT and Electronics Convention (MIPRO)” 2023, DOI: https://doi.org/10.23919/MIPRO57284.2023.10159696.
Gumzej N., ‘The Right to Be Forgotten’ and the Sui Generis Controller in the Context of CJEU Jurisprudence and the GDPR, “Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy” 2021, vol. 17, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3935/cyelp.17.2021.447.
Hörnle J., Internet Jurisdiction: Law and Practice, New York 2021, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198806929.001.0001.
Iannotti della Valle A., The (In)Adequacy of the Law to New Technologies: The Example of the Google/CNIL and Facebook Cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union, “European Journal of Privacy Law & Technologies (EJPLT)” 2020, no. 2.
Kranenborg H., Article 17: Right to Erasure (‘Right to Be Forgotten’), [in:] The EU General Data Protection Regulation: A Commentary, eds. C. Kuner, L.A. Bygrave, C. Docksey, New York 2020, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198826491.003.0049.
Obendiek A.S., The Right to Be Forgotten: Moral Hierarchies of Fairness, [in:] Data Governance: Value Orders and Jurisdictional Conflicts, Oxford 2022, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192870193.001.0001.
Padova Y., Is the Right to Be Forgotten a Universal, Regional, or ‘Glocal’ Right?, “International Data Privacy Law” 2019, vol. 9(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipy025.
Quinn J., Geo-Location Technology: Restricting Access to Online Content without Illegitimate Extraterritorial Effects, “International Data Privacy Law” 2021, vol. 11(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipab016.
Samonte M., Google v. CNIL: A Commentary on the Territorial Scope of the Right to Be Forgotten, “European Papers” 2019, vol. 4(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.15166/2499-8249/332.
Streinz T., The Evolution of European Data Law, [in:] The Evolution of EU Law, eds. P. Craig, G. de Búrca, New York 2021, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192846556.001.0001.
Svantesson D.J.B., Delineating the Reach of Internet Intermediaries’ Content Blocking – “ccTLD Blocking”, “Strict Geo-location Blocking” or a “Country Lens Approach”?, “SCRIPTed – A Journal of Law, Technology & Society” 2014, vol. 11(2), DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2966/scrip.110214.153.
Taylor M., Transatlantic Jurisdictional Conflicts in Data Protection Law: Fundamental Rights, Privacy and Extraterritoriality, Cambridge 2023, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108784818.
Wolters P.T.J., The Territorial Effect of the Right to Be Forgotten after Google v CNIL, “International Journal of Law and Information Technology” 2021, vol. 29(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaaa022.
Wrigley S., Klinefelter A., Google LLC v. CNIL: The Location-Based Limits of the EU Right to Erasure and Lessons for U.S. Privacy Law, “North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology” 2021, vol. 22(4).
ONLINE SOURCES
Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Memoria Annual 2022, https://www.aepd.es/documento/memoria-aepd-2022.pdf (access: 2.2.2024).
Carrara K., The Right to Be “Almost” Forgotten: What Are the Limits of a Territorial Interpretation of Data Protection, Tilburg University, LL.M. thesis, 2020/2021, http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=154901 (access: 2.2.2024).
Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés, Scope of M. PLAINTIFF’s Right to Be Delisted according to Google, 24.3.2016, https://www.cnil.fr/en/infographic-scope-m-plaintiffs-right-be-delisted-according-google (access: 2.2.2024).
European Data Protection Board, Guidelines 5/2019 on the Criteria of the Right to be Forgotten in the Search Engines Cases under the GDPR (Part 1), version 2.0, 7.7.2020, https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/file1/edpb_guidelines_201905_rtbfsearchengines_afterpublicconsultation_en.pdf (access: 2.2.2024).
Fleischer P., Adapting Our Approach to the European Right to be Forgotten, 4.3.2016, https://blog.google/topics/google-europe/adapting-our-approach-to-european-rig (access: 2.2.2024).
Google, European Privacy Requests Search Removals FAQs, https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/7347822?hl=en (access: 2.2.2024).
Google, Google Privacy Policy, European Requirements – Data Controller, https://policies.google.com/privacy (access: 2.2.2024).
Google, Google Transparency Report – Requests to Delist Content under European Privacy Law, https://transparencyreport.google.com/eu-privacy (access: 2.2.2024).
Google, Legal Help, Right to Be Forgotten Overview, https://support.google.com/legal/answer/10769224?hl=en (access: 2.2.2024).
Google, Personal Data Removal Request Form, https://reportcontent.google.com/forms/rtbf?visit_id=638253262036290912-1897396507&hl=en&rd=1 (access: 2.2.2024).
Hulvey R.A., Companies as Courts? Google’s Role Deciding Digital Human Rights Outcomes in the Right to Be Forgotten, 2022, https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/2023-11/22_01_hulvey_companies-as-courts.pdf (access: 2.2.2024).
Kao E., Making Search Results More Local and Relevant, 27.10.2017, https://www.blog.google/products/search/making-search-results-more-local-and-relevant (access: 2.2.2024).
Kiss J., Dear Google: Open Letter from 80 Academics on ‘Right to Be Forgotten’, 14.5.2015, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/14/dear-google-open-letter-from-80-academics-on-right-to-be-forgotten (access: 2.2.2024).
Mantelero A., One-Stop-Shop Thematic Case Digest: Right to Object and Right to Erasure, 9.12.2022, https://edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2023-02/one-stop-shop_case_digest_on_the_right_to_object_and_right_to_erasure_en.pdf (access: 2.2.2024).
Smith M., Updating Our “Right to Be Forgotten”: Transparency Report, 26.2.2018, https://blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/updating-our-right-be-forgotten-transparency-report (access: 2.2.2024).
The Advisory Council to Google on the Right to be Forgotten, Report, 6.2.2015, https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/archive.google/en//advisorycouncil/advisement/advisory-report.pdf (access: 2.2.2024).
LEGAL ACTS
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 281/31, 23.11.1995).
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (OJ L 119/1, 4.5.2016; Corrigendum, OJ L 127/2, 23.5.2018).
CASE LAW
Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés, Deliberation 2016-054, 10.3.2016, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/cnil/id/CNILTEXT000032291946 (access: 2.2.2024).
Cour d’Appel Bruxelles, 2020/AR/1111, 30.6.2021, https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/publications/arrest-van-30-juni-2021-van-het-marktenhof-ar-1111-beschikbaar-in-het-frans.pdf (access: 2.2.2024).
Judgment of the CJEU of 13 May 2014 in case C‑131/12, Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González, ECLI:EU:C:2014:317.
Judgment of the CJEU of 24 September 2019 in case C-136/17, GC and Others v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL), ECLI:EU:C:2019:773.
Judgment of the CJEU of 24 September 2019 in case C‑507/17, Google LLC v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL), ECLI:EU:C:2019:772.
Judgment of the CJEU of 8 December 2022 in case C‑460/20, TU, RE v Google LLC, ECLI:EU:C:2022:962.
Litigation Chamber (Chambre Contentieuse), Decision on the merits 37/2020 of 14 July 2020 in case no. DOS-2019-03780, https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/publications/beslissing-ten-gronde-nr.-37-2020-eng.pdf (access: 2.2.2024).
Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar delivered on 10 January 2019 in case C‑507/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:15.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2024.33.2.87-107
Date of publication: 2024-06-27 10:20:31
Date of submission: 2024-02-15 02:04:37
Statistics
Indicators
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 Nina Gumzej
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.